From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lutz v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Nov 6, 1996
682 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

Opinion

No. 95-01219.

November 6, 1996.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County; Dennis P. Maloney, Judge.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Wayne S. Melnick, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Tonja R. Vickers, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.


In this appeal filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we affirm appellant's judgment and sentence. We strike, however, those portions of condition 18 of the order of probation forbidding appellant from frequenting places where alcohol is the main source of business and associating with persons who use alcohol, because those are special conditions of probation which were not orally pronounced at sentencing. See Ringling v. State, 678 So.2d 1339 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). As to condition 20, we strike the words "pay for" in regard to evaluation and the words "pay for" in regard to treatment for the same reason. See Luby v. State, 648 So.2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).

Affirmed as modified.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and BLUE and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Lutz v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Nov 6, 1996
682 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)
Case details for

Lutz v. State

Case Details

Full title:Sheldon T. LUTZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Nov 6, 1996

Citations

682 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

Citing Cases

Fisher v. State

However, the special conditions of probation and community control that Fisher not enter places that serve…